my twitch vote was a compromise. it was day 1. mac, you are trying to make static, what was a dynamic opinion. i was willing to lynch twitch if need be. at times he seemed content to let me defend him, but overall, in the large scope, i generally understood what he was saying and thought the arguments against him were poor.
super: again. CONTEXT!
i have not seen so many cherry pickers in one place in a very long time.
Slandaar wrote:
Context:
DJ: VOTE TWITCH
Next Day
DJ: TWITCH WAS OBVTOWN!!!!!
If he was so obvtown there is no way you vote him; you do not compromise on people you think are obvtown (as town)
no. you are ignoring the context of the vote. nowhere did i say that twitch was "obvtown all day long". and even if i did, it was day 1 and lynches often have to come through compromise. and like i have explained, twitch accepted my defense readily. it would be egotistical of me to think that twitch could simply "not be scum". not all mafia act scummy. going into night phase, twitch was not one of my suspects. so when someone comes out and says "hey look! twitch got vigged!" it makes me a bit suspicious.
slaan wrote:
OK I voted only town yesterday. So, what? you voted a lot of town yesterday; twitch, rev, moz probably more; bacde very very likely.
bacde? really? what i get from this is that you agree that you voted two conftown and noone else. so if you are town, maybe your scumdar ain't what you think it is.
slaan wrote:Were they trying to lynch town, or lynch someone they think is scum; do you really only see people trying to lynch townies when the person flips town? no, I don't think this is a town mentality.
my point exactly. it works both ways. so you just nullified your own point. well done. "compromising" on a lynch is town mentality. it is clearly different than oppurtunistic wagon hopping. speaking of which... who the hell votes for an sk when there is apparently a vig soft claim on the table from another player? scum. thats who.
vote:super
